Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
I'm perfectly aware of the ID / cdesign proponentsists movement, and their failed attempts to insert their doctrines into education.
Real science doesn't start with the answer, but draws the most parsimonious conclusion from the data.
ID has no other utilization other than to say "goddidit," which in no way adds to our collective understanding of how the world works. Not one university uses ID, and the "DI" hasn't discovered one thing since it's inception. ID is a big turd in the pool of science.
There's a reason arguments from big numbers and incredulity only work on the religious, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?
You better not sin and you better love your brother, then you will see Him.and then how can you explain this:
1 John 3:6 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.",
1 John 4:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
?!
Blessings
I am thinking about this, so I haven't forgotten it. Will let you know later.I am interested in all evidence.
Have you ever investigated the dover trial and the testimony of dr. Behe, who was the ID crews star witness. He got a bit embarrased.
So in regards to evidence for ID, lets start with this:
Provide the scientific definition of ID.
Provide the scientific falsifiable test, to determine if ID is present.
HitchSlap says:
I'm perfectly aware of the ID / cdesign proponentsists movement, and their failed attempts to insert their doctrines into education
I too am aware of ID proponents trying to bring ID into the educational discussion. With all your heart, mind, might, and will you fought like lions, and pulled every trick in the book to keep it out. For what reason?
1) If ID were given an educational process, most "reasonable" students would side with ID, not with 0 chance random happening. So the fight was over keeping scientific guesses on top of the heap, regardless of any thing else.
2) If ID were given an educational process, revenue from scientific books would plummet, making it less attractive for young hungry scientific theorists to publish.
3) If students chose ID at the high school level, the multi universe and evolutionary theories would diminish so rapidly as to astonish the world. So not one word of ID is acceptable, or it's over.
4) There are many other reasons that I have not got time to mention.
HitchSlap:
Real science doesn't start with the answer, but draws the most parsimonious conclusion from the data.
Science, because of the pressure to meet the godless status quo and to keep the revenue rolling, and to keep their jobs, has to publish what science wants published. Anything that disproves ID or proves that ID is not necessary is the agenda. So if the data doesn't exactly add up for the agenda, then it is either discarded on the heap of good data for ID, or the tests are run over and over until the tiniest positive data is recovered in order to announce against ID.
HitchSlap:
There's a reason arguments from big numbers and incredulity only work on the religious, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?
Well you have used "ignorance", "arrogance", and now "incredulity". The large numbers bother science because when you divide the large number into 1 it is a mathmatical elimination of ramdom chance happeing, which is all you have. If I were you, I would not like large numbers either.
You must not watch the newsEverywhere I look, there God is.
You better not sin and you better love your brother, then you will see Him.
"ID"...That's such a confluted term... even as a Lover of God, I have no idea what that means.What's the word for a person who ignores evidence of ID, because they are so sure that there is no ID?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually I am a scientist.
If the universe was eternal, not expanding, not winding down and not a unity within a diversity then that would falsify the theory that the Christian God created this universe.
bh: Does this theory you mention above, meet scientific standards of a theory?
bh: What evidence points only to a God and no other possible causes (if there was a cause)?
In what way?bh: And sorry, your test, does not meet scientific standards.
Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.That just pushes it back one step. There has to be some universe that originally came about without cause or else never came about at all and exists eternally.
That's not exactly accurate.Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.
Not exactly true.The first three were once believed by most scientists until all the evidence started pointing toward the Big Bang.
I wouldn't!That's not exactly accurate.
God exists outside our known universe.
I mean, God does not need the universe to exist.
(i think you agree)
Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?